I doubt they will pay him anything. They'd rather pay a lawyer a few grand than someone who is trying to extort a domain name.

If the guy is trying to extort (you assume he is going to try and bully a corporation?), then I agree but, I am sure they will just make him an offer right off the bat and if he is smart, he would take it. Unless his legal name happens to be Sirius Xm

Originally Posted by zcurzan

If there a difference between squatting on a corporate name, and squatting on someone's personal name? The reason I ask is because I thought I remembered something like someone picked up LebronJames.com while he was still in high school and then sold it to him after the fact. Is it because a corporate name is trademarked?

There is a legal difference but I am not sure what it is as the result is the same now. Unless that guys name was Lebron James he would lose that domain in court as it stands today (this was not the case a few years ago).

If the guy is trying to extort (you assume he is going to try and bully a corporation?), then I agree but, I am sure they will just make him an offer right off the bat and if he is smart, he would take it. Unless his legal name happens to be Sirius Xm

The only offer they will make him, will be to either turn the domain name to them, or face legal issues. He has no legal claim to the name, and they shouldn't pay him anything except his costs for the domain name which won't amount to more than $50.

Trust me, I've dealt with these situations in the past to free up a domain name owned by a squatter for a client of mine (which was a police department).

Perhaps the fact that the client was a police department helped, but I'm pretty sure it would apply in all cases.

There is plenty of legal precedent on this issue and at the time of the purchase Sirius XM was NOT a trademarked name. He had just as much right to that name as anyone else.

I don't have to "trust you" as there any plenty of documented cases which you can view online. I trust you, in that you had to deal with this situation but not all squatting situations are cut and dry.

In the same vein, why can this site (and others) use the company's name in their title, and domain address? Is it because it is used for informational purposes and you include the disclaimer that this is in no way associated with the company?

Where do you draw the line? When you start selling satellite radios on the main page?

In the same vein, why can this site (and others) use the company's name in their title, and domain address? Is it because it is used for informational purposes and you include the disclaimer that this is in no way associated with the company?

Technically, you can't. They could easily contest the domain name if they wanted, but you see, the person is using the domain name, they are building a community on it.

They are actually contributing to Sirius, so Sirius has no reason to shoot down the website, but they very easily could if they wanted to.

The guy who owns siriusxm.com, just bought the name and parked it, and probably had no intention of doing anything with it.

His sole purpose of buying it was hoping one day the merged entity would offer to buy it from him.

If I was in charge of this decision for Sirius, I'd rather pay $20k in lawyer fees to get the domain name, than give the domain name squatter 20k. Mainly because I would want to discourage future cybersquatting and chances are the cybersquatter doesn't have the money to defend the purchase of his domain (which is a absolute SURE LOSE), and it probably would just take one letter from a lawyer to have him begging to give up the domain name for free.

Also, the ICANN (who controls the domain name system) and would probably very easily hand over control of siriusxm.com to Sirius XM without any lawyers being involved.

In order for a trademark owner to bring a claim under the ACPA, the owner must establish

the trademark owner’s mark is distinctive or famous;
"Sirius/XM" were obviously a well known brands at the time.

the domain name owner acted in bad faith to profit from the mark; and
Obvious also the case, he never did anything with the website, his only intention was hoping Sirius XM would buy the name from him for an astronomical sum.

the domain name and the trademark are either identical or confusingly similar (or dilutive for famous trademarks). Obviously also the case here.

A complainant in a UDRP proceeding must establish three elements to succeed:

The domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the complainant has rights;
The registrant does not have any rights or legitimate interests in the domain name; and
The registrant registered the domain name and is using it in "bad faith."

In a UDRP proceeding, a panel will consider several non-exclusive factors to assess bad faith, such as:

Whether the registrant registered the domain name primarily for the purpose of selling, renting, or otherwise transferring the domain name registration to the complainant who is the owner of the trademark or service mark;

The fact that he has done nothing with the site essentially proves his intentions.

But SiriusXM was not trademarked, they were 2 different companies. Neither chevy nor ford own chevyford.com... a guy named Ed Chung does.

Originally Posted by voogru

The fact that he has done nothing with the site essentially proves his intentions.

He could have pages and pages full of plans, products, and logos. Maybe he has a site ready to go live right now? It is totally unlikely but I hope you understand my point that there are a lot of different legalities and precedents. The time it takes go through them all and bring them to trial is worth $XX,XXX easy.